TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th April, 2017 and different e-mails and highlighted certain facts by the Appellant has failed to bring on record any document to suggest that the Appellant has rendered services to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ - Thus there being a disputed question of fact, the Adjudicating Authority had rightly refused to entertain application under Section 9 preferred by the Appellant - appeal dismissed. - Company A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ). The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Single Bench, New Delhi, by impugned order dated 16th March, 2018, dismissed the application preferred by the Appellant giving rise to the present appeal. 2. The Adjudicating Authority while held that the Appellant does not come within the meaning of Operational Creditor , also rejected the claim on the ground that no demand noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is clause 14 (Exclusivity) has been struck of and the letter is not signed by any person. For the said reason, we have not relied upon the aforesaid so-called agreement. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied on proof of services rendered on Respondents and enclosed between Pages 112 to 176, but we find that those are e-mail exchanges between the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held to be an Engagement Letter. Whether the Respondent- Corporate Debtor raised any dispute before filing of the insolvency application under Section 9 or not is not the question. The Adjudicating Authority has not accepted the relationship of the Corporate Debtor and the Operational Creditor between the Respondent and the Appellant; we also do not find any such relationship. 7. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
